Skip to main content

Full text of "The case of the anti-Zionists : a reply"

See other formats


Simon,  (Sir)  Leon 

The  case  of  the  anti-Zionists 


he  Case  of  the 
Anti-Zionists  : 


A    REPLY 


by 

LEON    SIMON 


Published  by  the  Zionist  Organisation,  London  Bureau, 

35-38,  Empire  House,  175,  Piccadilly, 

London,  W.   I. 


1917. 


^^ 


The  Case  of  the  Anti-Zionists: 

A    REPLY. 


The  appearance  in  rapid  succession  of  four1  pamphlets 
directed  against  Zionism,  printed  by  the  same  Press  and  circu- 
lated gratis  to  the  same  favoured  individuals,  is  a  clear 
indication  of  concerted  action  on  the  part  of  a  small  group  of 
Jews  who  arc  opposed  to  Zionism.  Yet  the  pamphlets  them- 
selves contain  no  hint  of  any  avowal  of  common  inspiration 
or  purpose.  There  is  nothing  in  any  of  them  to  show  what 
Society  or  Association  is  behind  this  sudden  blossoming  of  anti- 
Zionist  literature.  That  is  a  fact  which  deserves  noting  at  the 
outset  as  betokening  a  certain  unwillingness  on  the  part  of 
these  gentlemen  to  avow  openly  the  obvious  truth  that  they 
have  set  their  heads  together  to  deal  a  series  of  blows  at  Zionism. 
It  looks  as  though  they  would  like  it  to  be  believed  that  Sir 
Philip  Magnus,  Mr.  Claude  Montefiore,  Mr.  Laurie  Magnus 
and  Mr.  Lucien  Wolf  have  come  separately  and  independently 
to  the  conclusion  that  this  is  the  time  to  publish  an  anti-Zionist 
pronouncement.  We  do  not,  of  course,  suggest  that  they  arc 
deliberately  playing  a  game  of  that  kind  ;  if  they  had  been 
doing  so,  they  would  not  have  made  the  unavowed  fact  of  joint 
action  so  apparent  as  it  is.     But  they  are  clearly  trying  to  get 


1  Since  this  reply  whs  written  there  has  reappeared,  with  a  new  cover 
but  otherwise  without  change,  a  sermon  entitled  "  The  Mission  of  the  Jew", 
which  was  delivered  last  Pentecost  by  the  Rev.  Ephraim  Levine,  M.A.,  at  the 
New  West  End  Synagogue,  and  was  printed  shortly  afterwards  ("  with  one 
or  two  alterations  ").  This  pamphlet  bears  no  name  of  printer  or  publisher, 
but  there  is  evidence  of  its  connection  with  the  present  anti-Zionist  campaign 
in  the  fact  that  a  new  print  of  it  is  given  to  the  world  just  at  this  time,  in  its 
external  appearance  and  type,  and  in  the  fact  that  it  contains  an  attack  on 
Zionism  and  Zionists.  This  attack,  which  appears  to  be  dragged  in  without 
relevance  to  the  rest  of  the  sermon,  shows  no  trace  of  any  attempt  on  the  part 
of  its  author  to  understand  what  Zionism  is,  or  to  familiarise  himself  with 
the  most  elementary  facts  about  the  Jewish  problem.  We  should  be  paying 
it  an  undeserved  compliment  if  we  treated  it  seriously. 


the  best  of  both  worlds.  They  wish  to  produce  alJ  the  effect 
of  a  conceited  attack  without  incurring  the  odium  thai  might 
attach  to  a  self-confessed  attempt  to  organise  a  movement 
against  Zionism. 

Another  point  Worthy  of  note  is  the  fact  that  none  of  the 
four  pamphlets  has  been  wholly  written  for  the  occasion. 
Three  of  the  four  may  aptly  be  described  as  "  dug-outs." 
4t  Jewish  Action  and  Jewish  Ideals,"  by  Sir  Philip  Magnus. 
Bart.,  M.l\.  first  appeared  in  the  Jewish  Chronicle  as  far  back 
as  November  13th,  1891.  It  is  reprinted  now  with  a  few  foot- 
notes added.  "Nation  or  Heligious  Community?"  by  Claude 
ti.  Montefiore,  M.A.,  is  a  Presidential  Address  delivered  before 
the  Jewish  Historical  Society  of  England  on  December  Jird, 
1899,  and  is  reprinted  without  change  from  Vol.  IV.  of  tin 
Transactions  of  that  Society.  "  Zionism  and  the  Neo-Zionists," 
by  Laurie  Magnus,  M.A.  (Temp.  Major,  Royal  Defence  Corps), 
consists  in  the  main  of  passages  from  a  book  published  in  1902. 
Only  the.  remaining  pamphlet  tL  The  Jewish  National  Move- 
ment," by  Lucien  Wolf  which  is  reprinted  without  change 
from  the  Edinburgh  Review  of  April,  1917,  is  of  recenl  date. 
(Had  Mr.  Wolf  chosen,  like  his  friends,  to  resurrect  something 
from  the  more  distant  past,  he  could  have  reprinted  the 
sympathetic  article  on  Zionism  which  In-  wrote  for  the 
Encyclopasdia  Britannica  in  L908.)  Now  a  pamphlet  is  not,  of 
course,  necessarily  less  valuable  or  weighty  because  it  is  old. 
Hut  the  reflection  inevitably  suggests  itself  that  whereas  ;i  new 
Zionist  literature  has  been  produced  in  this  country  by  a  group 
of  young  writers  during  the  last  two  years,  anti-Zionism  is  so 
largely  dependent  for  its  controversial  output  on  the  resuscitated 
writings  of  men  who  said  their  say  a  score  of  years  ago.  Where, 
one  is  compelled  to  ask,  are  the  young  anti-Zionists'.''  If  the 
aims  of  Zionism  are  so  dangerous  to  Judaism,  so  desperately 
opposed  to  the  true  mission  of  the  Jewish  people,  and  if  emanci- 
pation and  assimilation  mark  the  true  line  of  Jewish  progress. 
why  is  there  not  a  rally  of  young  and  ardent  spirits  to  the  cause 
which  Sir  Philip  Magnus  and  Mr.  Claude  Montefiore  have 
championed  for  so  long  ?  We  are  far  from  suggesting  that  the 
young  are  necessarily  right,  and  their  elders  necessarily  wrong ; 
but  is  there  not  some  significance  in  the  fact  that  the  young 
and   forward-looking   men,    with   whom   the   future   is   likely    to 


rest,  are  inspired  by  the  Zionist  ideal  to  throw  their  weight 
on  the  side  of  the  great  body  of  the  Jewish  people,  while 
the  defence  of  the  opposite  point  of  view  is  left  to  the 
"old  guard"? 

The  four  anti-Zionist  pamphlets  which  we  are  here  con- 
sidering vary  greatly  in  quality.  Sir  Philip  Magnus'  Jewish 
Chronicle  article  is  short  and  superficial,  and  is  pitched  in  flu- 
key of  preaching  rather  than  in  that  of  argument.  Mr.  Claude 
Montefiore  writes  like  a  scholar  and  a  sincere  seeker  after  truth, 
with  whom  it  is  a  pleasure  to  break  a  lance,  because,  though 
his  view  is  in  our  opinion  distorted,  it  is  evidently  the  truth 
and  nothing  but  the  truth  that  he  desires.  Mr.  Laurie  Magnus 
is  "  clever,"  and  writes  with  an  air  of  superiority  which  is  more 
amusing  than  annoying.  Mr.  Lucien  Wolf,  with  his  pretentious 
and  seemingly  impartial  presentment  of  a  subject  with  which 
he  betrays  but  the  slightest  acquaintance,  drags  us  down  to 
the  level  of  ordinary  controversial  pamphleteering.  In  this 
kind  of  writing,  in  which  the  object  is  not  to  enunciate  or  to 
ascertain  the  truth,  but  simply  to  score  points,  Mr.  Wolf  is  a 
past  master  ;  but  on  this  occasion,  as  we  shall  show,  he  has 
ventured  beyond  his  depth. 

Before  proceeding  to  deal  with  each  of  the  pamphlets  in 
detail,  we  must  allow  ourselves  a  word  on  the  four  single-sheH 
leaflets  which  accompany  them,  one  in  each  pamphlet.  These 
leaflets  contain  quotations  from  various  "  authorities,"  designed 
to  show  that  Judaism  has  no  political  bearing,  that  Judaism 
is  not  a  Nationality  but  a  Religion,  that  Jews  can  "  identify  " 
themselves  completely  with  Englishmen,  and  so  forth.  They 
are  of  themselves  sufficient  to  discredit  the  cause  which  they  are 
meant  to  establish.  Take  first  the  letter  on  "  Zionism  at  the 
Universities,"  which  was  sent  by  twenty-five  "  graduates  and 
members  of  the  Universities  of  Oxford,  Cambridge  and  London  " 
to  the  Jewish  Chronicle  in  April,  1909  (on  the  occasion  of  an 
interview  with  Mr.  Norman  Bentwich)  and  is  now  reprinted  and 
circulated  with  Sir  Philip  Magnus1  pamphlet.  These  twenty-five 
gentlemen  "  deeply  deplore  the  statement  that  Jews  are  not 
and  can  never  be,  '  entirely  English  in  thought,'  "  and  assert 
that  "  when  an  alien  [i.e.,  presumably  an  alien  Jew]  has  become 
naturalised,  he  is  an  Englishman  in  his  rights  and  obligations, 
and  we  hold  that  it  is  his  dutv  to  see  to  it  that  his  children  shall 


grow  up.  as  Jews,  '  entirely  English  in  thought  ' — as  English 
in  aspiration,  interest  and  zeal  as  those  who  are  '  descended 
from  ancestors  who  have  mingled  their  blood  with  other 
Englishmen  for  generations.'  '  These  gentlemen  have  evidently 
fallen  into  an  elementary  confusion  between  political  duties 
and  aspirations  on  the  one  hand  and  spiritual  traditions  and 
ideals  on  the  other.  The  position  of  the  honest  mid  conscious 
Jew  in  a  modern  state  may  present  some  difficulties  (theoretical 
rather  than  practical),  but  they  can  be  met  when  once  the  tacts 
are  honestly  recognised.  They  are  not  to  be  solved  by  shallow 
sophisms  which  glide  away  from  the  real  issues  involved.  Take. 
again,  the  quotations  from  the  late  Chief  Rabbi's  articles  in  the 
Nineteenth  Century  (July,  1878,  and  December,  1881),  with 
which  Mr.  Montefiore  presents  his  readers.  "  We  are  simply 
Englishmen,  or  Frenchmen,  or  Germans,  as  the  case  may  l>e. 
certainly  holding  particular  theological  tenets  and  practising 
special  religious  ordinances."  Has  anybody  ever  defined  the 
"  particular  theological  tenets  "  which  all  Jews  hold,  or  round 
even  a  bare  minimum  of  "  religious  ordinances  "  which  all  Jews 
obey?  "We  regard  all  mankind  as  brethren."  Of  course  we 
do  ;  but  that  recognition  of  the  brotherhood  of  man  is  closely 
bound  up  with  the  sense  of  separateness,  with  the  feeling  that  a 
Jew  is  a  Jew,  and  a  non-Jew  is  a  non-Jew.  "  We  regard  as 
apostates  those  of  our  fellow-Jews  who  abandon  their  faith." 
This  is  true  if  by  "  abandon  their  faith  "  we  mean  "  undergo 
baptism "  ;  but  everybody  knows  that  a  Jew  may  abandon 
every  single  article  of  traditional  Jewish  belief  and  practice, 
and  still  call  himself  a  Jew  and  be  regarded  as  a  Jew  by  Jews 
and  Gentiles  alike.  And  so  one  might  take  every  sentence  of 
the  two  passages  quoted  from  the  late  Chief  Rabbi's  articles, 
and  show  that  it  is  either  equivocal  or  irrelevant  to  his  point. 
Rut  it  is  with  the  leaflet  enclosed  in  Mr.  Wolfs  pamphlet  that  we 
reach  high-water  mark.  Here  we  have  the  opinions  of  two 
Jews  whose  opinions  on  Judaism  as  a  religion  must  really  carry 
weight.  They  are  Signor  Luigi  Luzzatti,  an  Italian  politician, 
who  has  been  known,  we  believe,  to  extol  the  Christian  Gospels 
at.  the  expense  of  the  Jewish  Law,  and  M.  Joseph  Reinach,  a 
French  politician,  who  throughout  a  long  career  has  maintained 
scarcely  the  slenderest  connection  with  Jews  and  Judaism. 
These  are  the  teachers,  O  Israel !     These  are  the  men  who  are 


brought  forward  to  tell  us  that  "  Judaism  is  not  a  Nationality, 
but  a  Religion  " — two  men  who,  if  "  religion  "  were  really 
the  test  of  Judaism,  would  find  it  hard  to  establish  their 
claim  to  the  name  of  Jew.  There  is  something  almost 
inconceivably  fatuous  in  the  use  of  these  two  names  by  men 
who  want  to  deny  that  there  is  anything  but  a  religious  bond 
to  unite  Jews.  One  is  tempted  to  believe  that  Mr.  Wolf  is 
having  a  joke  at  the  expense  of  his  readers.  By  comparison 
with  this  triumph  of  paraJdox  Mr.  Laurie  Magnus'  achievement 
in  bringing  in  evidence  the  President  of  the  Central  Conference 
of  American  Rabbis  (1917)  pales  into  insignificance ;  though 
it  is  obvious  that  a  Rabbi  who  speaks  of  Rabbis  as  "messengers 
of  the  Lord  of  Hosts  "  is  so  far  from  understanding  the 
traditional  Jewish  point  of  view  that  he  confuses  the  function 
of  a  Rabbi  with  that  of  a  Prophet.  However,  it  is  not  to  be 
expected  that  men  who  can  impress  Luzzatti  and  Reinach  into 
the  service  of  "  religion  "  should  have  any  qualms  about  an 
American  Rabbi.  Of  course,  this  whole  system  of  citing 
"  authorities  " — and  such  "  authorities  "  ! — is  little  better  than 
childish,  and  is  itself  one  of  the  best  proofs  of  the  poverty  of 
the  anti-Zionist  case. 

We    pass    now   from    the    leaflets  to  the    four  pamphlets, 
taking  them  in  order  of  antiquity. 


SIR    PHILIP    MAGNUS'    "JEWISH    ACTION    AND 
JEWISH    IDEALS." 

Sir  Philip  Magnus  sets  himself  to  answer  the  question  why 
it  is  that  the  Jews,  in  whom  the  desire  for  a  restoration  to 
Palestine  has  always  been  so  strong,  have  yet  done  little  or 
nothing  to  bring  about  by  their  own  exertions  "  the  restoration 
of  the  political  independence,  to  which  so  many  confidently 
look  forward  as  the  forerunner  of  the  Messianic  age."1  "  It 
might  have  been  thought,"  he  says,  "  that  a  people,  racially 
one,  united  even  in  dispersion  by  such  ties  as  a  common  language, 
trustworthy  traditions,   a  glorious  past,  and  a  sacred  mission, 

1  P.  3. 


would  have  been  capable  of  worthier  efforts  for  the  restoration 
of  their  nationality  than  any  which  the  history  of  nearly  eighteen 
centuries  records.''1  It  is  not  that  the  national  idea  in 
Judaism  is  "  a  vague  yearning  and  nothing  more  "  ;  if  it  had 
beeo  that,  we  should  not  have  seen  "  the  success  that  has 
attended  the  recent  efforts  of  a  few  well-meaning  agitators  to 
band  together  numbers  of  poor  Jewish  refugees  by  the  hope 
of  a  return  to  Palestine."2  But  the  note  struck  by  the  Choveve 
Zion  "  vibrated  only  in  the  hearts  and  memories  of  those  who 
heard  it  ....  its  vitality  was  still  too  feeble  to  touch 
the  springs  of  action."3     Why  is  this  ? 

By  way  of  answer.  Sir  Philip  Magnus  suggests  that  "  the 
idea  is  but  the  mental  image  of  a  mission  to  be  otherwise- 
fulfilled."4  It  is  the  destiny  of  Israel,  "  sprung  from  a  single 
family,  which  grew  into  a  tribe,  to  develop  into  a  nation,  and 
ultimately  to  become  a  scattered  people."5  The  same  mission 
which  called  the  Jews  out  of  Egypt  into  Palestine  called  them 
at  a  later  date  out  of  Palestine  into  exile.  "  It  may  be — who 
can  say  ?— that  Zion  will  again  become  the  centre  of  God's  cult. 
But  Zion  secured  by  the  goodwill  of  foreign  Powers  is  a  vision 
which  no  true  prophet  ever  saw."6  So  the  Jewish  national  idea 
is  to  be  realised  in  the  abandonment  of  Jewish  nationality,  and 
the  Jews  arc  to  be  "  witnesses  of  the  Lord,"  whose  "  duty  is  in 
testifying,  by  their  separate  existence,  to  God's  superintending 
Providence,  and  by  their  individual  lives  to  the  abiding  laws  of 
right  and  to  the  essential  truths  of  religion."7  Of  course,  the 
lot  of  all  Jews  is  not  happy.  But  "  it  may  be  for  some  wise  purpose 
hidden  from  our  view  that  the  heart  of  the  modern  Pharaoh 
has  been  hardened.  ...  As  individuals  we  feel  for  them 
[the  suffering  Jews]  and  work  for  them  ;  but  .  .  .  beneath 
their  present  sorrows  we  recognise  a  force  urging  them  to  take 
a  fuller  part  in  the  great  civilising  mission  assigned  to  them 
as  Israelites."8 

It  will  be  noticed  that  Sir  Philip  Magnus  is  a  convinced 
Jewish  nationalist.  He  does  not  suggest  that  the  Jews  are 
simply  a   "  religious  community,"   but  recognises  fully  the  ties 

1   P.  4.         ■  P.  5.  3  Pp.  5,  6.  4  P.  6.  *  lb.  »  Pp.  7,  8. 

-  P.  8.  8  Pp.  8,  9. 


of  "  common  language,"  and  so  forth.  The  only  question  on 
which  he  differs  from  the  general  run  of  Jewish  nationalists  is 
that  of  the  practical  consequences  which  should  follow  from 
the  recognition  of  Jewish  nationality.  Zionists  adopt  the 
common-sense  view  that  the  right  way  to  preserve  a  nationality 
is  to  find  it  a  home,  to  secure  it  so  far  as  possible  against 
disruptive  influences.  But  this  is  far  too  simple  an  idea 
for  Sir  Philip  Magnus.  His  view  is  a  much  more  subtle 
one.  For  him  Jewish  nationality  is  something  so  sublime 
that  it  can  be  realised  only  by  being  abandoned.  Not 
because  Jewish  nationality  is  a  false  idea,  but  precisely 
because  it  is  a  true  idea,  the  Jews  must  refuse  to  restore 
their    national    life    in    Palestine. 

Study  of  the  Talmud  is  supposed  to  have  produced  in  the 
Jewish  mind  a  tendency  to  super-subtlety  ;  but  Zionists  have  no 
reason  to  fear  that  the  Jewish  people  will  accept  Sir  Philip 
Magnus'  theory  of  the  obligations  of  Jewish  nationality  in 
preference  to  their  own. 

But  what,  indeed,  are  the  obligations  of  Jewish  nationality 
according  to  Sir  Philip  Magnus  ?  We  look  in  vain  for  an  answer. 
We  are  told  that  the  mission  of  the  Jews  is  to  "  testify  "  by  their 
separate  existence  to  God's  providence  and  by  their  individual 
lives  to  the  abiding  laws  of  right,  etc.  But  how  is  their  separate 
existence  to  be  maintained  ?  And  what  is  to  be  the  guiding  rule 
of  their  individual  lives  ?  It  seems  scarcely  conceivable,  but 
Sir  Philip  Magnus  has  no  word  to  say  in  answer  to  these  crucial 
questions.  Yet  it  is  on  the  answer  to  these  questions  that 
everything  depends.  You  may  argue  till  the  end  of  time  whether 
Jews  are  or  should  be  a  nation  or  not,  whether  the  business  of 
Jews  is  to  "  testify,"  or  to  do  something  else,  without  getting  an 
inch  further.  What  the  plain  man  wants  to  know  is  what  is  to 
be  done.  We  have  in  countries  like  England  an  obvious  drift 
away  from  Judaism,  a  tendency  on  the  part  of  the  younger 
generation  of  Jews  to  lose  hold  of  their  language,  of  their 
"  trustworthy  traditions,"  of  their  religion,  of  everything 
distinctively  Jewish  that  they  can  get  rid  of.  We  had  in  Russia 
at  the  time  when  Sir  Philip  Magnus  first  wrote  his  sermon  (we 
have,  fortunately,  no  longer)  millions  of  Jews  ground  down  by 
persecution    and    restrictions.     What    is    to    be    done  ?     Is    the 


8 

magic  word  "  testify  "  sufficient  to  bring  back  the  indifferent 
to  the  fold,  and  to  give  the  suffering  hope  and  strength  to  carry 
on  their  unequal  struggle  ?  And  if  it  is  not — as  assuredly  it  is 
not — how  can  it  be  seriously  put  forward  as  an  alternative  to 
the  Zionist  ideal,  which  is  to  myriads  of  Jews  an  incentive  to 
practical  and  faithful  work  in  the  cause  of  their  people  ? 

And  this  notion  of  "  testifying  " — what  is  there  in  it  of  sub- 
stance ?  Effective  "  testifying  "  needs  two  parties.  It  demands 
not  only  that  certain  people  "  testify,"  but  also  that  certain  other 
people  take  note  of  their  testimony.  But  if  the  history  of  the 
past  two  thousand  years  proves  anything,  it  proves  that  the 
Jews  as  a  .scattered  race  cannot  get  the  necessary  hearing  from  the 
world.  Jewish  idealism,  Jewish  religious  faithfulness,  Jewish 
morality,  receive  scant  recognition  from  the  world  ;  but  the 
weaknesses  and  shortcomings  of  individual  Jews  are  fastened 
on  and  made  a  reproach  to  the  whole  Jewish  people.  That  is 
an  unpleasant  faet,  but  still  a  fact,  not  to  be  charmed  out  of 
existence  by  sanctimonious  phrases.  And  another  fact  of  some 
relevance  is  this — that  the  Jews  who  talk  loudest  about 
"  testifying  "  are  not  those  who  are  most  unswerving  in  their 
loyalty  to  Jewish  tradition.  The  Jew  of  the  Ghetto,  always 
misunderstood  and  often  despised,  who  bases  his  whole  life  on 
the  beliefs  and  observances  of  his  fathers,  does  not  claim  to  be 
"  testifying  "  or  "  fulfilling  a  mission."  It  is  the  comfortable 
assimilated  Jew  who  uses  these  phrases  to  cover  up  the  emptiness 
of  his  own  Judaism. 

Jewish  nationalism  demands  above  all  things  an  honest 
attempt  to  understand  and  to  grapple  with  the  complex  problems 
presented  by  the  situation  of  the  Jewish  people  in  the  modern 
world.  The  Zionist  contribution  to  the  solution  of  those 
problems  may  raise  difficulties,  may  be  open  to  criticisms. 
But  at  least  it  is  a  real  attempt  at  a  solution,  and  it  is  not  affected 
by  platitudes  about  the  "  mission  "  of  Jewry.  A  single  breath 
of  reality  blows  to  fragments  the  unsubstantial  fabric  of  words 
which  Sir  Philip  Magnus  presents  to  a  people  weary  of  exile  and 
longing  for  a  solid  foot  of  earth  whereon  to  live,  to  grow,  to 
realise  the  ideals  which  have  preserved  it  as  one  people  through 
centuries  of  persecution  and  of  assimilation. 


9 

Mr.    CLAUDE    MONTEFIORE'S    "NATION    OR 
RELIGIOUS    COMMUNITY  ?  " 

Mr.  Montefiore  takes  us  into  a  very  different  world.  We 
have  in  his  pamphlet  the  ideas  of  a  man  who  has  studied  and 
thought,  who  tries  to  understand  the  point  of  view  of  those 
from  whom  he  differs,  whose  business  is  not  to  obscure  funda- 
mental divergences  of  view  by  ambiguous  words.  It  would  be 
unfair  to  him  to  attempt  a  brief  summary  of  an  essay  which  is 
full  of  suggestive  ideas  ;  and  it  is  beyond  our  purpose  here  to 
follow  and  criticise  in  detail  his  reading  of  Jewish  history.  It 
must  suffice  to  state  the  fundamental  point  of  difference  between 
his  view  and  the  Zionist  view  of  the  proper  line  of  development 
for  Judaism,  and  to  show  why  in  our  opinion  his  view  is  not  the 
right  one. 

For  Zionists  it  is  an  axiom  that  what  Judaism  needs  most 
of  all  at  the  present  time  is  a  new  movement  of  concentration. 
Throughout  Jewish  history  it  is  concentration  and  not  diffusion 
that  has  preserved  the  Jewish  spirit  and  the  Jewish  way  of  life. 
What  has  rendered  possible  the  survival  of  the  Jewish  people 
and  of  Judaism  since  the  Jewish  State  was  overthrown  is  the 
fact  that  in  every  period  there  has  been  somewhere  a  strong 
centre  of  Jewish  life  and  learning,  which  has  served  as  a  reservoir 
whence  all  the  scattered  sections  of  Jewry  could  draw  vitality. 
In  Babylon,  in  Spain,  in  Germany,  and  most  recently  in  Poland, 
such  centres  have  existed.  To-day,  as  a  result  of  various  causes 
which  it  would  take  too  long  to  detail  here,  Jewry  is  or  is  coming 
to  be  without  a  centre,  and  is  falling  to  pieces  in  consequence  ; 
and  this  disruption  of  Jewry  is  inevitably  accompanied  by  a 
weakening  and  disintegration  of  Judaism.  Considered  in  this 
aspect,  the  movement  for  a  return  to  Palestine  is  the  natural 
reply  to  this  threat  to  Jewry  and  Judaism.  It  means 
reintegration  instead  of  disintegration  ;  it  means  the  creation 
of  a  new  unifying  force  in  Jewish  life — and  a  force  which  will 
be  not  only  unifying,  but  also  creative,  since  Palestine  has  this 
advantage  over  all  the  temporary  centres  of  the  exile,  that  it 
has  an  abiding  place  in  the  consciousness  of  the  Jew,  and  is  bound 
up  with  all  that  is  fundamentally  Jewish. 

It  will  be  observed  that  this  Zionist  attitude  postulates 
an    indissoluble    connection    between    the    Jewish     people     and 


10 

Judaism  ;  and  Mr.  Montefiore,  we  believe,  would  admit  that. 
when  once  that  postulate  is  admitted,  the  Zionist  position  follows 
as  a  matter  of  course.  But  he  does  not  admit  the  postulate, 
except  as  an  historical  fact.  He  realises  that  historically  Jewry 
and  Judaism  have  always  been  associated  ;  but  he  is  impatient 
of  an  association  which  seems  to  him  to  hamper  Judaism,  to 
prevent  it  from  achieving  the  empire  which  is  due  to  it  as  a 
universal  religion.  He  wants  Judaism  to  cast  off  the  remnants 
of  tribalism  and  nationalism,  to  "  take  its  place  among  the 
universal  religions  of  the  world,"1  to  compete  with  Christianity 
(though  he  does  not  say  this  in  so  many  words)  for  the  soul  of 
the  European.  That  is  his  alternative  to  Zionism.  There  is  no 
juggling  with  the  word  "  nationalism,"  no  pretending  that  the 
way  to  preserve  the  Jewish  nationality  is  to  destroy  it.  The 
Jewish  nationality  is  to  go,  and  Judaism  is  to  remain  as  one 
of  the  universal  religions — as  the  religion  of  such  Englishmen 
or  Frenchmen  or  Greeks  or  Jews  as  may  be  persuaded  to  adopt 
it  for  the  sake  of  its  universal  truths. 

There  is  a  superficial  attractiveness  about  this  ideal  of 
Mr.  Montefiore's.  To  make  Judaism  no  longer  the  exclusive 
creed  of  a  despised  race,  but  a  faith  counting  its  adherents 
by  millions  in  every  civilised  country ;  no  longer  tolerated 
as  a  quaint  survival  from  the  days  of  tribal  religions,  but 
welcomed  as  a  path  to  salvation  by  an  ever-growing  number 
of  gentiles — that  is  at  least  an  intelligible  aim  for  the  Jew. 
and  one  which  may  for  a  moment  seem  to  make  the  Jewish 
struggle  worth  while,  to  give  meaning  and  purpose  to  the  long 
tragedy  of  Jewish  history.  But  only  for  a  moment.  For  it 
is  not  the  Jew  in  us,  but  the  European,  who  finds  this  prospect 
fascinating.  Once  look  at  the  vision  with  Jewish  eyes,  and 
it  loses  its  sublimity.  The  Jewish  ideal,  the  ideal  of  the 
Prophets,  demands  the  perpetuation  of  the  Jewish  people  and 
the  never-ending  attempt  to  embody  in  its  national  life  the 
will  of  God,  the  law  of  righteousness  :  and  it  sees  that  attempt 
ultimately  crowned  with  sneeess,  and  the  nations  of  the  earth 
coming  up  of  their  own  accord  to  do  homage  to  the  God  of 
Israel,  who  is  also  the  God  of  the  universe.  Beside  that  mag- 
nificent   conception    the    ideal    of    Mr.    Montefiore — a    Judaism 

1    P.   15. 


11 

competing  for  souls,  inevitably  cheapening  its  wares  to  make 
them  acceptable,  and  content  to  regard  the  number  of  its 
professed  adherents  as  a  measure  of  its  worth — appears  mean 
and  petty.  The  Jewish  people  has  struggled  and  suffered  for 
the  Prophetic  ideal.  Will  it  now  abandon  that  ideal  for  one 
immeasurably    inferior  ?     Assuredly    not. 

But  the  sacrifice,  even  if  it  could  be  made,  would  be  made 
in  vain.  For  this  notion  of  Judaism  as  a  world-religion,  divested 
of  its  historical  and  national  associations,  is  a  mere  chimera. 
It  is  possible  to  construct  in  thought  an  abstract  Judaism,  no 
longer  bound  up  with  Jewish  history  and  national  consciousness, 
but  yet  differing  in  its  religious  tenets  and  its  moral  outlook 
from  Christianity.  But  the  only  Jews  who  want  a  Judaism 
of  that  kind  are  those  whose  outlook  is  already  penetrated 
through  and  through  with  conceptions  derived  from  Christianity. 
Of  this  truth  Mr.  Montefiore  is  himself  a  conspicuous  example. 
Writings  of  his  later  in  date  than  the  address  here  in  question 
reveal  his  sympathies  as  lying  on  the  side  of  Christianity  where 
there  is  a  conflict  between  Jewish  and  Christian  conceptions. 
He  is  on  the  Christian  side  in  tending  to  shift  the  centre  of 
authority  from  the  impersonal  law  to  the  heart  of  the  individual ; 
in  preferring  altruistic  love  to  impartial  justice  as  the  foundation 
of  ethical  conduct ;  in  regarding  marriage  as  an  indissoluble 
sacramental  covenant  rather  than  as  a  human  institution ; 
and  so  forth.1  In  fact,  his  whole  conception  of  what 
"  religion "  is  reflects  Christian  and  not  Jewish  ideas. 
In  saying  this  we  are  far  from  impugning  the  reality 
or  the  sincerity  of  Mr.  Montefiore's  Jewishness.  His 
conspicuous  services  to  his  people — the  Jewish  people — would 
sufficiently  dispose  of  any  such  suggestion.  But  the  new  wine 
which  he  wishes  to  pour  into  Jewish  bottles  is  Christian  wine  ; 
and  if  the  future  of  Judaism  were  left  in  the  hands  of  those 
who  think  and  feel  as  he  does,  Judaism  might,  indeed,  become 
"  one  of  the  universal  religions  of  the  world,"  but  it  would  do 
so  by  becoming  indistinguishable  in  essentials  from  the  dominant 
religion  of  Europe. 

1  On  Mr.  Montefiore's  attitude  to  Christianity  see  Achad  ha-Am's 
essay,  "  Judaism  and  the  Gospels "  (English  translation  in  the  Jewish 
Review,  Vol.  I.,  pp.  203-229.) 


12 

Mr.     LAURIE     MAGNUS'      "ZIONISM     AND 
THE     NEO-ZIONISTS." 

Mr.  Laurie  Magnus'  contribution  to  the  anti-Zionist  cam- 
paign may  be  dismissed  with  a  very  few  words.  On  the  positive 
side  he  has  nothing  to  offer  except  the  platitudes  about 
"  serving  some  divine  end  "  and  being  "  a  witness  and  a  priest  " 
with  which  his  father  has  already  regaled  us.  On  the  negative 
side  he  gives  us  little  more  than  a  discursive  and  rather  flippant 
criticism  of  certain  Zionist  utterances,  which  is  partly  justified 
but  is  wholly  irrelevant  to  the  real  question.  His  method  is 
very  simple.  Assume  that  modern  Zionism  is  concerned  with 
nothing  more  important  than  the  establishment  of  a  "  Jewish 
State"  as  an  end  in  itself:  set  over  against  this  purely  imaginary 
conception  of  Zionism  one  or  two  flaming  passages  from  Isaiah  : 
and  the  overthrow  of  Zionism  is  complete.  There  is  no  need 
for  understanding  or  for  logic.  "  We  are  " — so  Mr.  Laurie 
Magnus  interprets  the  demands  of  Zionism — "  we  are  to  be 
citizens  of  the  country  in  which  we  live  ;  we  are  to  be  members 
of  the  State  of  Palestine  ;  we  are  to  cherish  the  Zion  of  Hebrew 
hopes."1  Obviously  no  Zionist  can  ever  have  imagined  that 
any  individual  Jew  would  be  at  one  and  the  same  time  a 
citizen  of  the  Jewish  State  and  a  citizen  of  another  State. 
But  what  does  it  matter,  so  long  as  the  "  neo-Zionists  " 
are  soundly  rated  by  this  self-appointed  spokesman  of  the 
"  orthodox   Jew  "  ? 

This  sort  of  stuff  may  have  been  excusable  fifteen  years 
ago,  when  Zionism  was  little  understood  in  this  country,  and 
when  also  the  Zionist  movement  itself  had  not  reached  equili- 
brium, and  it  was  possible,  by  fastening  on  isolated  Zionist 
utterances  which  did  less  than  justice  to  the  fundamental  realities 
of  Zionism,  to  seem  to  convict  the  movement  out  of  the  mouths 
of  its  own  champions  of  having  a  narrow  horizon  and  being 
dependent  on  unstable  political  combinations.  But  the  last 
two  years — to  go  back  no  further — have  produced  a  Zionist 
literature  in  the  English  language,  in  which  he  who  runs  may 
read  that  Zionists  do  not  regard  a  Jewish  State  as  an  end  in 
itself,  that  they  care  little  about  a  Jewish  State  as  such,  that 

1  P.  ll. 


13 

their  concern  is  about  a  stable  home  for  the  Jewish  people  and 
for  Judaism,  where  the  Jewish  people  may  be  able  once  more 
to  prove  itself  worthy  of  the  glorious  vision  of  Isaiah.  Mr. 
Magnus  has  either  read  that  literature,  or  he  has  not.  If  he 
has,  his  failure  to  take  account  of  it  is  inexcusable.  If  he  has 
not,  it  must  be  left  to  him  to  formulate  canons  of  controversy 
which  will  justify  him  in  attacking  a  movement  without  taking 
the  trouble  to  find  out  what  it  has  to  say  for  itself. 

Mr.     LUCIEN     WOLFS     "THE     JEWISH 
NATIONAL     MOVEMENT." 

In  Mr.  Lucien  Wolf  Zionism  has  a  more  dangerous  opponent 
than  any  of  his  three  collaborators,  because  he  is  more  dexterous 
than  they  and  more  determined  to  "  dish  "  Zionism  at  all  costs. 
His  method  is  highly  ingenious.  He  sets  out  apparently  to  give 
a  sympathetic  account  of  the  Jewish  national  movement,  and 
it  is  only  when  he  is  well  on  the  road  that  we  discover  his  real 
motive — which  is  to  advance  certain  well-worn  arguments 
against  Zionism  under  the  guise  of  an  historical  study.  The 
pamphlet,  for  all  its  parade  of  learning  and  objectivity,  betrays 
ignorance  of  the  subject  and  is  full  of  misrepresentations. 
This  may  seem  a  serious  charge  to  level  against  a  writer  of 
Mr.  Wolf's  distinction,  but  we  shall  have  no  difficulty  in  sub- 
stantiating it — the  difficulty  will  lie  rather  in  so  limiting  our 
choice  of  examples  as  not  to  tire  the  reader. 

(1)  To  begin  with,  Mr.  WTolf  shows  himself  by  his  silence 
entirely  ignorant  of  the  considerable  body  of  modern  Hebrew 
literature  in  which  the  ideas  of  Jewish  nationalism  were  devel- 
oped and  crystallised.  He  does  not  mention  Krochmal  or 
Lilienblum  or  Smolenskin ;  he  refers  to  Achad  ha-Am  only 
in  a  footnote,  in  connection  with  Pinsker's  Auto-Emancipation . 
This  ignorance  is  itself  sufficient  to  rob  his  account  of  the  Jewish 
national  movement  of  any  value.  What  should  we  say  of  a 
writer  who  set  out  to  give  an  account  of  the  Polish  national 
movement  in  entire  (though  unconfessed)  ignorance  of  the 
Polish  literature  on  the  subject  ? 

(2)  Mr.  Wolf  shows  not  the  slightest  understanding  of 
the  real  forces  of  Jewish  nationalism.     He  tells  us,  for  instance. 


14 

that  in  the  struggle  between  Yiddish  and  Hebrew  "  The  Yiddish- 
ists, of  course,  won,"  and  that  their  victory  "was  not  without 
a  certain  formal  sanction,  for  in  1903,  at  a  conference  of  ardent 
young  Yiddish  intellectuals,  held  at  Czernowitz,  Yiddish  was 
solemnly  proclaimed  the  Jewish  national  language."1  There 
is  something  delightfully  naive  in  the  notion  that  Hebrew  can 
cease  to  be  the  national  language  because  the  "  Yiddishists  " 
say  that  it  is  not,  and  that  any  pronouncement  of  the  Czernowitz 
conference,  or  of  any  other  conference,  could  affect  the  question 
one  way  or  the  other.  The  fact  is  that,  while  Yiddish  is  of  course 
much  more  widely  used  as  a  spoken  language  than  Hebrew, 
its  claim  to  be  "  the  national  language  "  of  the  Jewish  people 
is  simply  grotesque.  Large  sections  of  the  Jewish  people  never 
have  known  Yiddish ;  large  sections  turn  their  backs  on  it 
as  soon  as  they  can  acquire  a  European  language.  Hebrew 
not  only  remains  the  one  language  in  which  all  Jews  as  such 
have  a  share  ;  it  is  also  becoming  more  and  more  a  language 
of  life.  Mr.  Wolf's  statement  that  "  Hebrew  remains  the 
linguistic  luxury  of  their  [the  Zionists']  elect  "2  shows  that 
he  is  ignorant  of  the  immense  strides  made  by  living  Hebrew 
during  the  last  generation.  There  are — or  were  before  the  war — 
scores  of  Hebrew  periodicals,  daily  as  well  as  weekly  and 
monthly  ;  and  in  Palestine — which,  though  Mr.  Wolf  does  not 
seem  to  know  it,  is  the  centre  of  the  Jewish  national  movement — 
Hebrew  is  the  mother-tongue  of  the  younger  generation  of  Jews. 
The  "  Yiddishists  "  are  a  few  misguided  enthusiasts  who  object 
to  Hebrew  because  they  object  to  Jewish  nationalism.  They 
are  inspired  not  by  love  of  Yiddish,  but  by  fear  of  Hebrew. 
The  truth  is  that  the  Bundists,  whom  Mr.  Wolf  represents  as 
the  real  Jewish  nationalists,  are  thorough-going  assimilants, 
using  Yiddish  because  it  is  in  fact  the  language  of  the  Jewish 
masses,  but  opposed  to  Palestine,  to  Hebrew,  to  everything 
that  has  a  national  value  for  Jews.  At  the  recent  All-Russia 
Jewish  Conference,  attended  by  over  five  hundred  delegates,  a 
resolution  embodying  the  Jewish  claim  to  Palestine  was  adopted 
all  but  unanimously — the  only  dissentients  being  some  three  dozen 
Hundist  delegates,  who  left  the  meeting  in  protest.  That  is 
a  measure  both  of  the  "  nationalist  "  attitude  of  the  Bund  and 

1    Pp.  8,  9.  a   P.  0. 


15 

of  the  extent  to  which  it  represents  the  mind  of  Russian 
Jewry. 

(3)  Mr.  Wolf  pays  a  good  deal  of  attention  to  Pinsker's 
pamphlet  Auto-Emancipation,  which  is  one  of  the  three  works 
mentioned  at  the  head  of  his  essay.  "  Pinsker,"  he  says, 
"  .  .  .  .  does  not  even  mention  Palestine.  He  ....  even 
recognises  the  patent  absence  of  Jewish  national  consciousness 
as  a  formidable  obstacle  to  the  realization  of  his  plan."1  This 
is  what  Pinsker  actually  says  : — 

The  national  consciousness,  which  formerly 
existed  only  in  the  latent  condition  of  a 
barren  martyrdom,  manifested  itself  before 
our  eyes  in  the  masses  of  the  Russian  and 
Rumanian  Jews  in  the  form  of  an  irresis- 
tible   movement    towards     Palestine. 

In  this  sentence  Pinsker  both  mentions  Palestine  and  shows 
that  he  recognises  the  existence  of  a  Jewish  national  conscious- 
ness which  is  bound  up  with  Palestine.  Mr.  Wolf,  therefore, 
is  actually  ignorant  of  the  contents  of  a  pamphlet  which 
he  himself  picks  out  as  one  of  the  important  works  on  his 
subject. 

So  far  as  to  the  extent  and  accuracy  of  Mr.  Wolf's  know- 
ledge. We  proceed  now  to  give  a  few  instances  from  his 
pamphlet  of  half-  truths  which  are  calculated  to  produce  a 
false  impression  in  the  minds  of  those  who  do  not  know  the 
facts. 

(1)  "  The  Jews,"  he  writes,  "  were  always  primarily,  and 
above  everything  else,  a  religious  community,  and  their 
national  life  in  Palestine  was  only  a  phase,  a  social  expedient, 
of  their  greater  history  as  a  Church."2  Mr.  Wolf  must  know 
very  well — if  he  did  not,  Mr.  Montefiore  could  have  told  him — 
that  the  early  history  of  the  Jewish  people  was  cast  in  a  time 
when  the  modern  distinction  between  "  nation  "  and  •*  religious 
community  "   did  not  exist.      But  in  saying  that    "  the    Jews 

were    always    primarily a    religious     community "     he 

is  trying  to  suggest  to  the  unlearned  that  even  in  the  days  of 

1  P.  6.  s  P.  2. 


16 

their  full  national  life  the  Jews  were  somehow  distinguished 
from  other  contemporary  nations  by  the  fact  that  their  cohesion 
was  based  on  religion.  That  is  not  the  fact.  The  cohesion 
of  the  Edomites  or  the  Moabites  was  based  on  religion  neither 
less  nor  more  than  that  of  the  Jews.  The  Jews  differed  from 
these  other  nations  in  having  a  purer  national  religion,  not  in 
being  a  Church  as  opposed  to  a  nation.  And  to  anybody  who 
knows  Jewish  history  it  is  almost  superfluous  to  point  out  that 
at  no  period  could  the  House  of  Israel  be  adequately  described 
by  the  term  "  Church  "  in  its  modern  sense. 

(2)  Mr.  Wolf  of  course  makes  much  of  Napoleon's  Great 
Sanhedrin.  and  he  says  that  "  even  in  Eastern  Europe  .... 
scarcely  a  word  of  protest  was  heard  "  against  its  anti-nationalist 
declaration.1  He  would  have  his  readers  infer  that  the  Jewries 
of  Eastern  Europe  somehow  acquiesced  in  the  abandonment 
of  Jewish  nationality.  That  is  absurd.  Representatives  of 
the  Jews  in  certain  western  countries  (not  including  England) 
met  in  the  Sanhedrin  and  accepted,  under  duress,  certain 
formulae  which  were  held  to  make  Judaism  compatible  with 
citizenship.2  Their  resolutions,  which  were  or  seemed  to  be 
necessitated  by  their  own  political  exigencies,  could  not  touch 
in  any  way  the  realities  of  Judaism,  and  could  not  have  am 
interest  for  the  Jewish  masses  in  Eastern  Europe,  whose 
circumstances  were  entirely  different.  And  in  any  case,  the 
Jewish  masses  were  not  then  organized,  and  had  no  representative 
body  through  which  they  could  have  protested  even  if  the 
necessity   for  a  protest   could   have   entered   their  heads. 

(3)  Mr.  Wolf  says  that  the  Zionists  "  eventually  found 
that  they  could  not  oppose"  '"the  principle  of  self-government 
and  equal  rights  for  all  nationalities  "  (in  Russia).3  Mr.  Wolf 
surely  knows  that  the  recognition  of  that  principle  is  not  a 
concession   wrung   from   Zionists,    but   is   a   natural  consequence 


1   P.  4. 

7  Mr.  Wolf  attaches  exaggerated  importance  to  the  resolutions  of 
the  Sanhedrin,  which  attracted  very  little  attention  until  they  were 
resuscitated  by  the  Jewish  "reformers"  in  Germany.  See  Mr.  H.  Sacher's 
pamphlet  "Jewish  Emancipation:  The  Contract  Myth"  (English  Zionist 
Federation,  1917),  p.   15. 

■    I\   12. 


17 

of  the  Zionist  point  of  view.  But  what  Zionists  maintain 
is  that  the  claim  for  Jewish  national  rights  in  Russia  is  a  local 
matter,  whereas  the  demand  for  a  national  centre  in  Palestine 
touches  the  whole  of  Jewry. 

(4)  Zionists  "  declare,"  says  Mr.  Wolf,  "  that,  where 
emancipation  does  not  exist,  it  is  not  worth  striving  for,  and, 
where  it  does  exist,  it  is  no  remedy."1  This  is  a  gross  travesty 
of  the  Zionist  view  that  emancipation  has  not  solved  and  cannot 
solve  the  Jewish  problem.  Zionists  do  not  maintain  anything 
so  absurd  as  that  emancipation  is  not  worth  striving  for. 

We  could  multiply  examples,  but  enough  has  been  said 
to  substantiate  our  charge  of  ignorance  and  misrepresentation. 
And  be  it  remembered  that  Mr.  Wolf's  essay  was  written 
originally  not  for  Jewish  readers  in  particular,  but  for  the 
readers  of  the  Edinburgh  Review,  who  might  be  expected  not 
to  have  such  acquaintance  with  the  subject  as  would  enable 
them  to  detect  his  ignorance  and  discount  his  half-truths.2 

With  that  we  may  safely  leave  Mr.  Wolf.  Any  fair-minded 
student  of  Zionism  will  know  how  much  weight  to  attach  to 
the  suggestion  of  such  an  opponent  that  Zionist  doctrines 
"  may  be  calculated  to  wreck  whatever  chances  of  liberty  and 
happiness  there  may  be  ...  .  for  the  seven  millions  of  unhappy 
Jews  in  Eastern  Europe."3  Indeed,  the  absurdity  of  that 
suggestion  has  since  been  proved  conclusively  by  the  eman- 
cipation of  the  Jews  in  free  Russia,  one  effect  of  which  has 
been  to  give  a  great  impetus  to  Zionism  in  Russian  Jewry. 

CONCLUSION. 

(A)     WHAT    ZIONISM    IS    NOT. 

We  have  now  reviewed  the  case  against  Zionism  as  presented 
by  these  four  opponents,  and  have  found  that  it  rests  with  Sir 
Philip    Magnus  on   a   sublime   disregard    of  the   realities   of  the 

1  Pp.  13,  14. 

2  The  present  writer,  having  heard  Mr.  Woirs  essay  delivered  as  a 
lecture,  and  having  learnt  that  it  was  to  be  published  in  the  Edinburgh, 
asked  the  editor  of  that  Review  for  permission  to  submit  an  article  setting 
Zionism  in  its  true  light ;  but  the  Editor  replied  that,  having  accepted  Mr. 
Wolfs  article,  he  could  not  print  another  in  the  opposite  sense. 

3  P.  14. 


18 

Jewish  position,  with  Mr.  Montefiore  on  a  desire  to  get  rid  of 
the  national  elements  in  Judaism,  with  Mr.  Laurie  Magnus  on 
refusal  or  inability  to  understand  Zionism,  and  with  Mr.  Lueien 
Wolf  on  ignorance  partly  real  and  partly  assumed.  It  is  fitting 
that  in  conclusion  we  should  attempt  a  clear  statement  of 
Zionist  aims,  so  as  to  leavrc  no  further  excuse  (if  any  existed 
before)  for  misunderstanding  and  misrepresentation.  And  first  it 
is  necessary  to  clear  the  ground  by  stating  what  Zionism  is  not. 

Zionism  does  not  regard  the  creation  of  certain  political 
conditions  in  Palestine  as  an  end  in  itself.  Political  action  is 
for  Zionism   a   means,    not   an   end. 

Zionism  does  not  regard  the  establishment  of  a  "  Jewish 
State "  in  Palestine  as  a  necessary  means  to  the  attainment  of 
its  aims.  Even  Herzl,  whose  use  of  the  term  Judenstaat  has 
given  rise  to  so  much  misunderstanding  on  this  point,  did  not 
demand  such  conditions  as  are  suggested  to  English  minds  by 
the  phrase  "  Jewish  State."  This  is,  in  substance,  what  Herzl 
said  in  a  Committee  on  the  Programme  of  the  First  Zionist 
Congress  in  1897  : 

"  People  did  not  understand  even  the  title  of  the  pamphlet 
[Der  Judenstaat].  I  did  not  propose  einen  jildischen  Staat 
(a  Jewish  State),  but  I  proposed  to  give  the  territory  the 
name  '  Judenstaat  '  (Jews'  State).  Had  I  wanted  a  State 
•  like  all  other  states  of  the  world,  I  would  have  labelled  it 
as  '  ein  jiidischer  Staat',  but  I  did  not  dream  of  making 
it  like  any  other  State.  I  was  thinking  of  a  Jewish  territory, 
well  protected  and  well  organized,  run  by  a  modern  Company 
on  the  lines  of  national  and  progressive  colonization.  Such 
territory  I  would  call  k  Judenstaat,'  but  it  was  far  from 
my  mind  to  compete  with  the  existing  empires,  kingdoms 
or  republics  by  the  creation  of  a  new  sort  of  kingdom.  All 
the  protests  against  this  non-existent  idea  are  mere  clap- 
trap. We  want  a  Jewish  Gemeinwesen  (Commonwealth) 
with   all   securities   for  freedom."1 

Zionism  does  not  contemplate  the  establishment  in  Palestine 
of  any  control  by  Jews  to  the  detriment  of  the  rights  of  any  other 
nationality  or  religious  sect. 

1   See  Mr.  Nahum  Sokolow's  article,  "  How  the  Basle  Programme  was 
made,"  in  the  Zionist  Review,  October,  1917. 


19 

Zionism  does  not  demand  of  any  Jew  a  double  political 
allegiance,  and  does  not  threaten  in  any  way  the  political  rights 
enjoyed  by  Jews  in  countries  other  than  Palestine.  Zionists  have 
never  suggested  that  Palestine  could  claim  the  political  allegiance 
of  a  Jew  who  chose  to  live  outside  Palestine  as  a  citizen  of  this 
or  that  State  ;  and  the  rights  of  citizenship  enjoyed  by  Jews 
in  various  countries  would  be  in  no  way  affected  by  the  fact 
that  a  larger  or  smaller  number  of  Jews  owed  no  political 
allegiance  except  that  which  sprang  from  their  being  members 
of  the  Hebrew  national  settlement  in   Palestine. 

Zionism  does  not  aim  essentially  at  relieving  the  economic 
situation  of  the  Jewish  masses.  The  opening-up  of  Palestine 
to  extensive  Jewish  immigration  should  have  beneficial  economic 
consequences  for  those  Jews  who  at  present  suffer  from  over- 
crowding and  excessive  competition ;  but  those  consequences 
would  be  a  by-product  of  Zionism,  and  even  if  immigration 
into  Palestine  were  so  gradual  that  the  large  Jewish  centres 
were  not  sensibly  relieved,  the  real  aims  of  Zionism  could  still 
be  accomplished. 

Zionism  is  not  simply  a  reflex  of  anti-Semitism  ;  it  is  not 
simply  an  attempt  to  remove  or  mitigate  the  evils  of  anti-Semitism  ; 
and  its  success  will  not  necessarily  obliterate  anti-Semitism.  The 
sufferings  of  the  Jews  have  naturally  been  one  of  the  motive 
forces  of  Zionism,  but  they  are  not  the  deepest  or  the  most 
abiding  motive  force,  nor  is  the  desire  to  escape  from  anti- 
Semitism  or  from  persecution  the  most  potent  incentive  to 
effort  for  the  re-establishment  of  Jewish  national  life  in  Palestine. 
And  since  the  existence  of  anti-Semitism  depends  not  only  on 
the  position  of  the  Jews,  but  also  on  the  prevalent  state  of 
mind  and  feeling  among  gentiles,  it  follows  that  the  re- 
establishment  of  Jewish  national  life  cannot  be  an  infallible 
cure  for  the  evils  of  anti-Semitism.  Recognition  of  this  fact 
is  of  course  quite  consistent  with  a  belief  that  the  accomplishment 
of  the  aims  of  Zionism  will  at  least  mitigate  those  evils  by 
removing  or  diminishing  one  or  more  of  the  contributory  causes 
of  anti-Semitic   prejudice. 


20 

(B)     WHAT    ZIONISM    IS. 

What,    then,    is    Zionism  ?     What   is    its    underlying   idea  ? 
What  are  its  practical  aims  ? 

The  underlying  idea  of  Zionism  is  that  of  Jewish  nationality. 
But  when  Zionists  say  that  the  Jews  are  a  "  nation  "  and  not  a 
"  religious  community,"  they  do  not  discard  a  great  spiritual 
heritage  for  a  dubious  political  future,  or  offer  the  birthright 
of  Jewish  ideals  in  exchange  for  a  diplomatic  mess  of  pottage, 
or  attempt  to  transfer  Jewish  allegiance  from  the  God  of  Israel 
to  a  petty  State.  They  simply  reject,  as  shallow  and  unhistorical, 
the  newfangled  philosophy  of  Judaism  which  would  have  us 
believe  that,  because  numbers  of  Jews  have  acquired  citizenship 
in  western  countries,  and  have  adopted  the  speech,  the  manners 
and  the  habits  of  western  peoples,  therefore  the  spiritual  heritage 
of  Israel  can  be  or  ought  to  be  whittled  away  to  the  religion 
of  a  sect  of  Englishmen  or  Frenchmen.  They  reassert  the 
old  conception  of  the  unity  of  Israel  as  an  ethnic  group  whose 
life  and  value  depend  on  the  vitality  of  those  ideals  for  which 
and  by  virtue  of  winch  it  has  struggled  on  through  thousands 
of  years  of  varying  fortune. 

That,  in  baldest  outline,  is  the  theory  of  Zionism.  Its 
practice  follows  naturally  from  that  theory.  In  practice, 
Zionism  aims  at  combating  those  forces  which  make  for  the 
disruption  of  the  unity  of  Israel  by  a  new  movement  of  con- 
centration, building  upon  that  sentiment  with  which  the  Jewish 
sense  of  unity,  the  Jewish  group-sense,  is  most  indissolubly 
connected — the  love  of  Palestine.  The  Jewish  love  of  Palestine 
differs  from  the  love  of  any  other  nation  for  its  country  in  that 
it  is  felt  by  individuals  who  have  no  personal  contact  with 
Palestine,  who  visualise  it  not  as  hill  and  vale  and  meadow- 
land,  but  as  the  source  of  their  spiritual  being  and  the  goal  of 
their  people's  wanderings,  as  the  Holy  Land  and  the  Land  of 
Promise.  But  Palestine  as  a  spiritual  centre  and  Palestine 
as  the  actual  home  of  Jewish  national  life  are  not  inconsistent 
conceptions  ;  rather  the  one  is  the  necessary  complement  of 
the  other.  To-day  it  is  more  apparent  than  ever  that  Palestine 
as  a  symbol  of  the  past  and  a  hope  for  the  distant  future  no 
longer  retains  its  empire  over  the  Jewish  heart  and  mind  so  fully 
as    to   be  an   effective  guarantee  of  the  unity  of  Israel.     It  is, 


21 

or  is  becoming,  a  spent  force.  It  needs  the  reinforcement,  the 
new  impulse,  that  only  actuality  can  give.  Palestine  has  to 
become  once  again  the  home  of  the  Jewish  people — in  idea 
the  home  of  the  whole  Jewish  people,  in  concrete  fact  the  home 
of  a  settlement  of  Jews  strong  enough  in  numbers,  in  energy, 
in  character,  in  idealism,  to  build  up  a  commonwealth  in  which 
all  that  is  distinctive  of  the  Jewish  type  will  have  free  play, 
and  which  will  stand  for  the  scattered  hosts  of  Israel  and  for 
the  world  at  large  as  the  pattern  and  exemplar  of  Jewish  life 
and   Jewish   civilization. 

How  are  the  foundations  of  such  a  commonwealth  to  be 
laid? 

Obviously,  the  first  requisite  is  a  solid  material  basis.  The 
Jewish  inhabitants  of  Palestine,  reinforced  so  far  as  necessary 
by  immigration  from  other  countries,  and  aided  so  far  as 
necessary  by  Jewish  capital  from  other  countries,  must  till 
the  soil  of  Palestine,  develop  its  neglected  resources,  discover 
and  turn  to  account  the  commercial  and  industrial  possibilities 
which  it  offers.  But  that  is  not  all.  All  that  might  be  done, 
and  yet  nothing  be  done.  A  commonwealth  of  Jews  is  not 
necessarily  a  Jewish  commonwealth,  even  if  it  consist  of  a 
million  or  five  million  Jews  who  are  economically  prosperous 
and  socially  and  politically  free.  A  Jewish  commonwealth 
must  find  its  principle  of  cohesion  and  its  justification  not  merely 
in  the  economic  or  the  political  sphere,  but  in  the  sphere  of 
sentiment  and  ideals.  Let  those  who  lay  the  foundations  of 
the  commonwealth  feel  themselves  to  be  the  custodians  of 
Israel's  cherished  traditions  and  hopes  ;  let  them  be  inspired 
by  the  consciousness  that  they  are  restoring  their  nation  to 
life  and  vigour  in  its  ancestral  land,  reviving  its  ancient  language, 
and  re-creating  its  civilization  under  modern  conditions — and 
the  commonwealth  of  Jews  becomes  a  Jewish  commonwealth, 
secure  of  its  power,  sooner  or  later,  to  serve  as  a  centre  of 
attachment  for  the  whole  of  Jewry  and  a  source  of  renewed 
vitality  for  Judaism. 

Zionism,  then,  is  concerned  not  only  with  the  material 
possibilities  of  Palestine,  but  also  with  the  spiritual  capabilities 
of  the  Jewish  people.  Are  there  in  Jewry  men  of  the  right 
type  who  will  go  to  Palestine  to  lay  the  foundations  of  the  Jewish 


22 

commonwealth,  or  who,  unable  to  go  themselves,  will  help  the 
work  each  in  his  own  place  and  his  own  way  ?  The  experience 
of  the  last  generation  makes  it  possible  to  answer  this  question 
unhesitatingly  in  the  affirmative.  In  Palestine  itself  some 
forty  Jewish  agricultural  and  urban  settlements  have  been 
founded,  and  have  struggled  through  their  early  difficulties  to 
a  fair  measure  of  prosperity  ;  and  the  pioneer  settlers  have 
made  the  Hebrew  language  their  own  and  are  bound  together 
and  made  one  by  the  consciousness  that  they  are  doing  the 
national  work  of  Israel.  Outside  Palestine  the  call  of  the 
national  revival  has  been  heard  by  many  to  whom  Judaism 
had  become  a  mere  survival  or  a  matter  of  complete  indifference; 
and  while  Zionism  naturally  sets  up  no  inquisition  over  the 
individual,  it  remains  true  that  wherever  Zionism  goes  deeper 
than  mere  lip-service  to  a  programme,  it  leads  men  back  to 
Jewish  study,  back  to  the  Hebrew  language,  back  to  a  sense  of 
Jewish  values,  back  to  some  form  or  other  of  real  reunion  with 
Jewish  tradition  and  Jewish  ideals.  On  the  side  of  the  Jewish 
people,  then,  Zionism  has  done — not.  indeed  all  that  needs 
doing — but  a  great  deal  to  reawaken  the  Jewish  consciousness 
where  it  was  latent,  and  to  give  it  a  definite  objective  where 
it  was  in  danger  of  atrophying  for  the  want  of  one. 

But  what  of  Palestine  ?  If  Jewish  idealism  turns  more 
and  more  irresistibly  in  that  direction,  are  the  conditions  such. 
or  likely  to  become  such,  that  it  will  be  able  to  achieve  positive 
results  ?  Or  is  it  doomed  to  expend  itself  in  a  futile  struggle 
against    realities  ? 

Here    we    are    brought    lace    to    face    with    the  "political" 
aspect   of  Zionism     that    aspect    which    has    been    so  fruitful    of 
misunderstanding    and    of  calumny. 

Zionism  demands  the  development  of  Palestine  by  Jewish 
hands  and  brains  with  a  view  to  the  creation  of  the  Jewish 
commonwealth  ;  and  it  is  therefore  a  question  of  the  first  moment 
to  Zionists  whether  Palestine  is  or  is  not  open  to  Jewish  im- 
migration and  the  employment  of  Jewish  capital  in  the  purchase 
of  land  and  the  opening  up  of  the  country  in  every  possible  way. 
For  that  reason  Zionism  is  necessarily  interested  in  the  political 
position  of  Palestine,  and  in  certain  circumstances  it  is  bound 
to    concentrate    a    good    deal  of  its    attention    on  the    political 


23 

problem.  At  the  present  time,  for  instance,  when  the  political 
future  of  Palestine  is  bound  to  become  in  the  near  future  a 
question  for  the  world's  statesmen,  Zionists  would  be  guilty 
of  criminal  folly  if  they  did  not  do  all  in  their  power  to  secure 
that  such  conditions  shall  be  established  as  will  be  most  favour- 
able to  the  building  up  of  the  Jewish  commonwealth.  Those 
conditions  obviously  include  immunity  from  external  attack, 
security  of  life  and  property,  impartial  administration  of  justice, 
and  explicit  recognition  of  Palestine  as  the  home-land  of  the 
Jewish  people.  How  these  conditions  will  best  be  secured  is 
a  question  into  which  it  is  unnecessary  here  to  enter.  But 
nobody  can  refuse  to  Zionists  the  right  to  attempt  to  win 
sympathy  for  their  aims  from  all  who  may  have  a  voice  in 
determining  the  future  of  Palestine  ;  and  in  the  presentation 
of  Zionist  aims  to  the  world  it  is  necessary  to  bring  out  certain 
considerations  which  do  not  spring  from  Jewish  nationalism 
itself,  but  have  their  roots  in  that  complex  of  ideals,  ambitions, 
friendships,  and  rivalries  which  we  call  "  international  politics." 
Considerations  of  this  order  are  the  commercial  and  strategic 
importance  of  Palestine  ;  the  desirability  of  taking  Palestine 
out  of  the  cock-pit  of  international  jealousies  ;  the  rights  of 
the  Jewish  people  as  a  "  small  nation  "  ;  the  ability  of  the 
Jews,  once  re-established  as  a  nation  in  Palestine,  to  perform 
a  civilising  mission  in  the  East  and  to  serve  as  a  harmonising 
medium  between  East  and  West ;  the  beneficial  effect  of  the 
re-establishment  of  Jewish  national  life  in  Palestine  on  the 
"  Jewish  problem  "  in  those  countries  in  which  it  is  acute  ;  and 
so  forth.  All  these  considerations  are  not  of  the  essence  of 
Jewish  nationalism  ;  if  none  of  them  existed  (and  the  task 
of  Zionism  would  be  easier  if  some  of  them  did  not  exist),  the 
need  for  a  unifying  centre  of  Jewry  and  Judaism  would  be  none 
the  less  urgent.  But  in  the  actual  circumstances  they  arc 
relevant  to  the  problem  with  which  Zionism  is  concerned,  and 
the  fact  that  Zionism  makes  legitimate  use  of  them  does  not 
affect  its  underlying  aims  in  the  slightest  degree.  Political 
conditions  may  change  a  hundred  times,  but  the  "  eternal 
people  "  and  its  eternal  ideals  remain. 

Zionism,  then,  has  to  take  account  of  international  politics 
in  order  to  secure  such  conditions  in  Palestine  as  will  enable 
it  to   realize  its   aims   most  securely  and   most  quickly.      The 


24 

present  moment  seems  propitious.  In  many  countries  both 
the  government  and   public  opinion   arc   better  informed   than 

ever  before  about  the  meaning  and  the  aims  of  Zionism,  and 
the  sympathy  of  the  gentile  stands  in  marked  contrast  to  the 
hostility  of  a  small  but  noisy  section  of  Jews.  Zionism  needs 
and  values  that  sympathy,  not  because  it  holds  out  the  promise 
of  some  fifth-rate  "  Jewish  State,"  but  because  it  foreshadows 
the  possibility  of  resuming  in  the  near  future,  under  better 
auspiees  and  with  more  assured  steps,  the  interrupted  work  of 
building  up  in  Palestine  the  foundations  of  the  Jewish  common- 
wealth— that  commonwealth  which  will  become  in  time  the 
nerve-eentre  of  Jewry  and  the  visible  embodiment  of  the  Jewish 
attitude  to  life,  and  through  which  Israel  will  become  a  more 
effective  force  making  for  civilization,  for  progress,  for  right- 
eousness. 

It  is  in  the  light  of  this  vision  of  Israel  re-inspired  and 
inspiring  anew,  and  not  under  the  sway  of  petty  political  ambitions. 
that  Zionists  have  worked  for  a  generation,  and  will  continue 
to  work,  despite  the  many  obstacles  in  their  path,  despite  the 
indifference  of  some  and  the  calumnies  of  others.  The  pace  of 
their  work  will  be  quickened  if  calumny  can  be  silenced  and 
indifference  turned  into  active  help.  Theirs  is  a  task  which 
needs  the  energies  of  the  whole  of  Israel,  lint  quickly  or  slowly, 
easily  or  with  difficulty,  their  work  will  proceed  till  it  is 
accomplished.  "You  are  not  bound  to  complete  the  work; 
but  you  are  not   free  to  desist   from  it." 


THE    ZIONIST   REVIEW 

(THE    ORGAN    OF    THE    ENGLISH    ZIONIST    FEDERATION). 
Price   3d.   Monthly*;    Annual   Subscription;  3/6,   post  tree. 
Regular  features  include  : — 

Notes  and  Comments. 
Review  of  the  Month. 
Special  Articles,  and  Belles-lettres. 
Palestine  Pag< 

Literary  Notes  and  Book  Reviews. 
Review  of  the   1'ress. 
Local   Zionist    News.  » 
Order  through  any  Bookseller  or  Newsagent,,  voir  direct  from 
The  English  Zionist  Federation,  69,  Leadenliafl  Street,  London,  L.C.  2 

A-  1 

ZIONIST*  PAMPHLETS. 

Two   seriej?  of  Pamphlets  en  published   by   "The  Zionist." 

.  T£e  rifsfconsists  often  Pamphlets  deling  with  vkrjjous  aspects  of  Zionism- 
.  \the  iflea.s  and  aims  of,  Zionism,  its  hisSa%  ajidS^ifl^ionr/ite?  Ration  1 
Jewish,  .thought  And  the  Jewish  religion,  and^  Ziohisiwftsk  in  Palestine.     Tl 
^ second  consists  of  six  Pamphlets,  each  containing  (in  i^jglisn  translation)  a 
'  ^ISssay  of  Achad  ha-Am,  the  famous  Hebrew^shinker. 
'    v  ■  The  price  of  each  series  is  2/6,  post  free. 

Reduced  Terms  for  Quantities. 

Apply  to  S.    LANDMAN,    c/o    ENGLISH    ZIONIST    FEDERATIOF 
69,   Leadenhall   Street,   London,    E.C.  3. 


JEWISH  NATIONAL  FUND  PUBLICATION 

1.  The  Jewish  National  Fund,  by  Adolph  Bdhm.     1/-. 

2.  M^rhavia  :    A  Jewish  Co-operative  Settlement  in  Palestine.    5< 

3.  The.  Yemenite    Jews,    by    Joshua    Feldman.     2d. 

4.  The  Henl   Forest,     ljd. 

5.  Co-operative  Colonisation  in  Palestine.     Id. 

To  be  obtained  from  the 
JEWISH     NATIONAL     FUND     COMMISSION     FOR      ENGLANI 
4,  Fulbourne    Street,  W.hitechapel,  London,  B.  1. 


Further  Publications  are  in  preparation. 


Petty  &  oons  (Leeds)  Limited,  Whitehall  Prtnteries, 


2£. 

-3; 


PLEASE  DO  NOT  REMOVE 
CARDS  OR  SLIPS  FROM  THIS  POCKET 

UNIVERSITY  OF  TORONTO  LIBRARY 


DS     Simon,  (Sir)  Leon 

149       The  case  of  the  anti- 

S57    Zionists